Corporate Veil Can Be Lifted In Real Estate CIRP To Include Subsidiary's Assets If Inextricably Connected: Supreme Court S. 138 NI Act | No Enforceable Debt Exists If Cheque Is Presented Before Crystallisation Of Liability: Bombay High Court Premature Transfer Of Armed Forces Personnel Requires Administrative Justification Even If No Vested Right To Posting Exists: Gauhati High Court Sale Of Property Furnished As Solvent Surety For Leave To Defend Amounts To Civil Contempt: Bombay High Court Video Conferencing Not Permissible For Reconciliation In Matrimonial Disputes Until Settlement Efforts Fail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Insurer Notified Of Accident Within 30 Days Cannot Escape Liability For Statutory Interest Under Employees' Compensation Act: Madras High Court Mining Lease Holders Must Pay Compensatory Afforestation Charges For 'Broken-Up' Areas To Extend Forest Clearance: Karnataka High Court Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction Of Dance Teacher For Sexually Assaulting Student, Reduces Life Sentence To 10 Years RI Revision Against Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Not Maintainable Without Seeking Recall From Trial Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Loses Jurisdiction To Pass Orders After Prevention Of Corruption Act Sections Are Added To FIR: Calcutta High Court Non-Compliance With Section 47 BNSS Regarding Informing Grounds Of Arrest Vitiates Detention, Accused Entitled To Bail: Orissa High Court Time-Bound Insolvency Resolution Impossible Without Infrastructure: Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of NCLT Vacancies & Delays Recovery Becomes Mere Seizure If Disclosure Statement Not Recorded Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Bidder’s Failure To Disclose Past Debarment In Affidavit Is Fraudulent; Vitiates Contract Even If Debarment Period Ended: Rajasthan High Court High Court Cannot Entertain Second Appeal Against Acquittal If Appellate Remedy Already Exhausted; Cannot Convert Acquittal To Conviction In Revision: Supreme Court Conviction Sustainable Despite Eye-Witnesses Turning Hostile Based On Conduct & 'Res Gestae' Evidence: Allahabad High Court Judicial Temperament vs. Courtroom Decorum: AP High Court’s 24-Hour Custody Order Increasing Supreme Court Judge Strength to 38 Navigating the Supreme Court’s Crackdown on AI-Generated "Hallucinations"

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Latest Legal News